|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 50 of 191:
| 
Jul 1 13:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #48: The nicer way to look at it is that politicians have a limited
amount of time each legislative session, and spending some of it
repealing laws nobody's going to get prosecuted under anyway is
wasteful. (Remember, the Democrats didn't get rid of it back
when they had control either. And we still have a blasphemy statute
which is completely unconstitutional.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 51 of 191:
|
Jul 1 15:01 UTC 2003 |
At least the Democrats repealed the criminal syndicalism statute.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 191:
|
Jul 1 15:06 UTC 2003 |
To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a time consuming issue, or a
controversial one. I'm not naive enough to think politicians will see
it that way, though.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 191:
|
Jul 1 15:08 UTC 2003 |
51: (Not to be confused with criminal cynicism...)
|
richard
|
|
response 54 of 191:
|
Jul 1 22:05 UTC 2003 |
The main argument against adult incest being legal is that of inbreedin,
and the dangers of incestual couples producing sickly children. But while
that is a valid concern, I'm not sure it should be a legal basis for
disallowing two adults from engaging in private behaviour they both
consent to.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 55 of 191:
|
Jul 1 22:58 UTC 2003 |
It would if there's a significant risk of children coming about as a result.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 191:
|
Jul 1 23:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 57 of 191:
|
Jul 1 23:32 UTC 2003 |
the question is are the Constitutional rights of two adults involved in an
incestual relationship different from anyone else's? Same argument made
in Lawrence v Texas about gays in a relationship. The answer is no. They
are adult citizens of the United States and all adult citizens have the
same rights. I believe that if it were found that this father and
daughter in Michigan had resumed their sexual relationship, and they were
prosecuted under current Michigan law, that it would not hold up in court
anymore than Texas's sodomy laws did. The government isn't the church or
your parents. The government isn't there to be your moral guardian or
conscious or judge of your private life.
Unless of course Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania becomes President.
Because he wants to be Pope, not President
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 191:
|
Jul 1 23:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 59 of 191:
|
Jul 2 02:08 UTC 2003 |
The idea of a legislative body which is tasked with repealing laws,
mandatory sunset provisions, and the like have been proposed in
minarchist/libertarian circles. This seems like a good argument
such schemes.
|
other
|
|
response 60 of 191:
|
Jul 2 05:23 UTC 2003 |
A logical compromise would be to make incest legal so long as both
parties are 18 or over and not mentally incompetent. However, it should
be illegal (and aggressively enforced) to give birth to a child which
results from incest.
This would serve to allow the state to guarantee the care of children
unfortunate enough to be born under such circumstances, and would also
serve to discourage practicioners of incest from reproducing thusly.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 191:
|
Jul 2 06:29 UTC 2003 |
A lot of incest is non-consensual, actually or legally. These should be
crimes. Consensual incest between adults I would think is pretty rare.
Its probability is probably reduced in part because of the common
knowledge of the possible birth defects that may result. Then, making the
rare remaining instances also criminal - probably doesn't do much good, as
people will do what they want to do regardless. What is then needed is not
punishment but having the persons assume responsibility for offspring.
|
other
|
|
response 62 of 191:
|
Jul 2 07:10 UTC 2003 |
1) Non-consensual sex, whether incest or not, is already illegal and
should remain so.
2) Making incestual parents responsible for the offspring of their
stupidity as a punishment for such stupidity is even more stupid than
than the offense itself. That only victimizes the offspring, who is the
only one in the scenario not at fault.
|
jazz
|
|
response 63 of 191:
|
Jul 2 13:21 UTC 2003 |
I wonder if the incest laws are actually being used to prosecute
consensual sex, or as Rane points out, primarily rape.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 191:
|
Jul 2 15:05 UTC 2003 |
Re #62: what do you propose to do about the parents of the offspring of
incestual cohabitation? (I did not say that making them responsible was
*punishment*: in fact, I said what is needed is *not* punishment. I also not
say that those parents should have custody of such offspring, only
responsibility for them.)
|
flem
|
|
response 65 of 191:
|
Jul 2 15:21 UTC 2003 |
It's my understanding taht women who are over 40 [1] when they have children
are much more likely to have children with birth defects. Perhaps we should
prohibit them from having sex, too. For that matter, I understand stupid
people are more likely to have stupid children than smart people. Wow,
this is a gold mine. We can control all kinds of people's sex lives this way!
[1] or 45, or whatever that age was. Heck, I'm not even sure where I heard
that. At any rate, that's not the point.
|
other
|
|
response 66 of 191:
|
Jul 2 17:54 UTC 2003 |
Are you suggesting that the odds of birth defects from incestual
pregnancies and from pregnancies of women over 40 are comparable?
Are you suggesting that stupidity is a birth defect?
My suggestion reduces state control over people's sexual activities and
enforces responsibility for the consequences, which I think is a far
superior method of social conditioning. And, I do believe that the state
has a legitimate interest in picking up where social conditioning through
THIS PARTICULAR taboo has previously assured the general diversity of the
gene pool. I can accept this particular restriction where I would not
accept others because of the comparatively extreme anti-survival effect
on the gene pool of this particular kind of breeding practice. I
consider it a reasonable species self preservation mechanism.
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 191:
|
Jul 2 18:09 UTC 2003 |
I seem to recall that a recent study found that the risk of birth
defects from many forms of incest wasn't notably higher than for
non-related people. Cases like the British royal family only arise when
generation after generation breeds within a small gene pool. I think
the study dealt with first cousins, though, not brothers and sisters.
|
other
|
|
response 68 of 191:
|
Jul 2 18:11 UTC 2003 |
I think the relevant definitions are sibling and parent-child.
|
flem
|
|
response 69 of 191:
|
Jul 2 19:09 UTC 2003 |
re #66: I'm not suggesting anything about the relative likelihoods of birth
defects from older mothers and incestual relationships. I'm suggesting that
perhaps we ought not to be grasping quite so desperately for reasons to
regulate people's sexual behavior. To spell it out, I think that what kind
of children a couple is likely to have (in the event that they have children)
ought to have absolutely no bearing on whether or not they are legally
allowed to have sex.
I haven't the slightest idea what your
proposal was.
Is stupidity a birth defect? I'm strongly tempted to claim it is, just to
see what you say.
|
other
|
|
response 70 of 191:
|
Jul 2 19:29 UTC 2003 |
To which I would be tempted to respond that such a claim would not be
worthy of response unless accompanied by evidence of reputable origin de-
linking intellectual performance from environmental factors.
|
flem
|
|
response 71 of 191:
|
Jul 2 21:28 UTC 2003 |
I dunno, conventional wisdom seems to be on my side. The burden of proof rests
with you, I'm afraid. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 191:
|
Jul 2 23:54 UTC 2003 |
You can fully expect the Lawrence v Texas decision to be a major issue
in next year's election. With conservative fears that laws against gay
marriage are now in jeopardy, Bush and his political advisors are said
to be salivating over the idea of introducing a new proposed Amendment
to the Constitution, which would spell out a ban on gay marriages
They'd probably word the proposal something like:
"The government of the United States of America hereby recognizes that
marriage in this country can only be entered into by two persons who
are heterosexual, and who are not close blood relatives"
They'd include the incest part to blunt criticism that it is just an
anti-gay Amendment, and to make it politically more potent. Bush would
come out strongly in favor of such, and try to turn the entire election
into a referendum on the institution of "marriage" If his opponents
say they are against this Amendment proposal, then his spin doctors
will say "Bush is FOR the institution of marriage, and his opponents
are against it, that his oppenents are "for" gay marriages and
incestual marriages.
Even though this might not have any chance of actually getting the
required votes to become an Amendment to the Constitution, Bush's folks
will surely think that simply having the proposal out there serves its
purpose. To portray Bush as the protector of the institutions of
family and marriage.
Get out the Maalox, there's going to a lot to make you feel ill during
this next year's election cycle...
|
dcat
|
|
response 73 of 191:
|
Jul 2 23:56 UTC 2003 |
**going** to be?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 74 of 191:
|
Jul 3 01:02 UTC 2003 |
There already exists in federal law the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA,
1996). Up until then, marriage laws had been left up to the States,
although a number of federal law referred to the married status, for
certain rights and privileges. The origin and wording of the DoMA are
presented at http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Federal_.htm It still leaves the
definition of marriage up to the States but rather concerns recognition of
States for the marriage laws of other States if the marriages are between
persons of the same sex.
An amendment would probably use part of the language of the DoMA.
|